Skip to main content
12:30 pm
mr. to join us. president olague: on april 7th, we are having the discussion about treasure island. he has been everywhere in the city government. if someone like he could come and give us the expertise to the discussion, i just don't know what his availability is. in addition to mr. blackwell, if he has the time available, and others, so that we have a robust discussion about what this means. the physical project and these other issues are around public benefits.
12:31 pm
[crosstalk] >> i think that's fine, but it's like they are all in house people. it would seem that there might be some other expertise around who can look at it from a different perspective. i don't know who those people are. with a little searching around, i think there are outside consultants, somebody that has some perspective other than the redevelopment agency staff. >> since we are having a discussion on this and linda is starting to get nervous, i am talking to rich about getting someone from outside city government to talk to us on april 7th when you have informational hearing on treasure island. i don't know who that is, but the first one done in the city was here.
12:32 pm
that was the first one. there are people out there -- commissioner antonini: maybe someone from the governor's office would have a perspective on it. a couple of items -- many of you may have been watching the n.c.a.a. division one men's championship basketball last week and and will be throughout the tournament of course. i have the brackets here -- i was doing my brackets -- this is part of my comment and there's a reason for it. the size of this tournament, not just the final four, but all the games beginning with last week and are located in 12 different cities. these cities include dayton, ohio, newark, new jersey, tulsa, tucson, tampa, cleveland,
12:33 pm
washington d.c., denver and chicago, all of which have lower populations than san francisco. two of them have higher populations -- chicago and houston, where the final four will play. the reason we will not host anything here is we have no or rain and we haven't had an arena. this is huge -- we have no irina and we haven't had an arena. this precludes us from any major concert because capacity is too small from national political conventions to the nba and a lot of sources of revenue. this is one of the things i comment on frequently and there are plans afoot to try to do something which, and the times we are challenged for revenue and trying to figure out ways of getting more revenue into san francisco, this is a source of huge amounts of revenue for events that can occur virtually 365 days or nights a year. it's something we should pursue privately and publicly to see what can be done.
12:34 pm
an interesting article in today's "chronicle." i know lot of you probably saw this -- it talked about projections on gross national per-capita, they say san francisco is projected by 2025 to have the fourth highest in the u.s., which is encouraging. but they did mention some admonitions. interestingly enough, competition with male -- surprisingly enough, the cities that finished with us -- that finished ahead of us were not necessarily smaller in populations but not as dense as we are -- they had san jose, charlotte and bridgeport, conn. i think what they commented on specifically was transportation, the quality of housing, the quality of schools and parks and
12:35 pm
those are our challenges. i thought it was an insightful article, it's just one opinion, but it points you to some things we deal with all the time and we lose many of our most productive citizens because we don't address their needs in housing. a lot of things to do. commissioner borden: i agree with the ideas about the redevelopment funding hearing. i did want to pick up on a same public comment had related to the formula retail issue and a financial services issue. i know we have always considered financial institutions to be separate from retail legislation, but might be worthwhile having a discussion at commission about the formula of retail legislation in general. i think it has been nearly 10
12:36 pm
years. just the impact, what has happened and if there are any necessary updates related to based on new realities. it would be useful to have a clarifying discussion and in some cases, if people want, going to the board to make changes, but i think it's worthwhile how it impacted positively or negatively, neighborhoods and what has been the outgrowth of the consequence. i know one of the other trends we have seen as more stores that are -- they don't have locations in the united states but more stores in europe and other places opening in san francisco. i know there are concerns that have arisen since we conceived that legislation and it would be worthwhile having that discussion and looking at all the ramifications. commissioner sugaya: i would
12:37 pm
like to support commissioner borden on that. it's partially based on an article i read that had to do with concerns in new york city about the proliferation of branch banks, in this case in neighborhood areas. and the fact they did not have a mechanism to address those issues, so i would like to have something before us to discuss. commissioner borden: maybe we did in calendar that with the very specific pet store of legislation. i imagine that will come to the commission, some maybe that's a day to have that discussion. commissioner moore: i want to
12:38 pm
express my support for what the commissioner borden is saying. i have seen personally one of the most unusual combinations in formula banking and retail just minutes ago where you walk into a starbucks and on the other side of the starbucks, you are complemented by full set of banking services provided by wells fargo. i thought that was a little bit over the top. it speaks to some of the concerns expressed by members of the public. i think it's going a little bit too far. president olague: wanted to mention of a couple of things -- four weeks ago we had the conversation -- i think it was a follow-up meeting where people were invited and i understand there was a good discussion. is there going to be a follow-up to that? >> nothing is scheduled right
12:39 pm
now. staff is working on the housing element. once you adopt the housing element today, we're happy to work on that. [laughter] president olague: on one of our monday meetings, we will check in on that. i know there was a list of things they wanted staff to look at and possibly bring back to us for amendments. i wanted to get the status on that. the census, will be scheduling -- we should be scheduling a hearing or discussion on the senses. -- on the census. maybe there'll be some questions about an advance so she does not have to come here without that information. as commissioner moore mentioned,
12:40 pm
the vacancy rate, that would be an interesting thing to have. i would also like to discuss the shift in demographics in areas like south of market and some of those districts. i always think in terms of electoral districts. district 6 and district 9, particularly. those are the main things i wanted to follow-up on. we should look at the calendar because we're starting a little bit behind on some of these hearings. after may, we should start scheduling some of these policy discussions here. like the formula of retail, the census, these other meetings are more community meetings with staff. in the past, we have mentioned tourism and there are other ones we could catch, start catching up on. i was interested in this twitter
12:41 pm
discussion. it led me to think a little bit about manufacturing and some of these artists and type businesses we're seeing -- are disentitled businesses we're seeing in the city. -- artisan businesses we're seeing in the city. where are the jobs for people in certain communities -- i was just wondering what the state of manufacturing is. that conversation -- maybe job development -- trends and work- force development in san francisco. vice-president miguel: and the formula retail discussion, i would be very interested in knowing as far as financial services are concerned whether
12:42 pm
the city attorney has ever given any way in on definitions as to waive the code is written. i think that's extremely pertinent. it would be interesting to know what the city and 30 -- what the city attorney's interpretation of that is. i don't think there's anything this commission could do without it. as far as the comments on the vacancy rate, i get confused by seeing figures all over the place and i have yet to see a definition or methodology by which those figures are put together. i do not know how that's counted. i don't know if that's directly from the census figures and whether it is something that we rang the bell for times on four different days and we sent out to pieces of mail and no reply, therefore must be vacant. i don't know what the criteria
12:43 pm
is for considering something vacant. without that, the statistics are meaningless to me. i think there is a great deal of actual fact that has to be gotten into. i am not disputing the number, i just have no basis for believing it. president olague: we can move forward -- >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm still not quite used to this early starting time. i want to mention a couple of things brought up today -- i have a call into at&t to ask what the implications are for
12:44 pm
their plans given their acquisition of t-mobile and i will get back to you on that. we have talked about how to move forward with a plan of sort with the carriers. the carriers to have a five-year plan they submit to us. but what seemed clear to us and -- is that we should try to break that down to get more immediate example of what all of the carrier's plans are so we can see how they overlap. we are working on that. we're working on a memo right now that is on my desk for review and we will hopefully get that to you next week. i also wanted to mention -- i will send you the link the e- mail called "the san francisco travel now." they submitted their annual report on tourism statistics. your comment reminded me of
12:45 pm
that. it is interesting to look at the number of tourists from inside the country as opposed to outside or those who are here for conventions or personal vacations. it's interesting to look at that information and get a picture of the folks out there coming to the city. i signed the memo yesterday that was prepared on the census. if you don't have it today, you will get it in the next day or two. the question of the definition of vacancies is a very good one. i have asked the same question and the memo doesn't address it. we will address that in the future and i think it's a good idea and will work with linda on scheduling a hearing. >> years ago, we had a hearing and i don't and we got to the nature of our question. i don't think that is necessarily the source that should be invited to that discussion. >> i think that's it for me.
12:46 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to report on the board of supervisors activities for planning and land use. i want to share a couple of ordinances that the land use commission this week. the first would require active uses on portions of fillmore street. this is a smaller ordnance requiring active uses on the ground floor only. you heard this on march 3rd and recommend approval with a couple of conditions. he recommended the definition of "active usage" expanded to include an outdoor seating areas and a new restaurant -- the self service specialty food. since your planning commission hearing, the supervisor included both of your recommendations in to the ordinance. the land use committee recommended approval to the full board. the other ordinance is a larger,
12:47 pm
older piece of legislation seeking to revise parking, use controls, street frontage regulation and selected -- in selected areas to conform with policies from our recently adopted planning areas. all told, this proposed ordinance would amend or repeal 28 separate portions of the planning code. at the highest levels, this ordinance can be summarized by the following -- it would help to regulate building block by counting parking limits in neighboring commercial districts and the special use distct. it would limit the dominance of brush -- the dominance of groszarages. it establishes the ground floor controls, removes the parking minimum requirements for the market specialty's district, it would allow the zoning administrator to reduce parking
12:48 pm
when certain conditions are met and would apply the street frontage controls to the limited commercial uses and residential districts. it would also take with it the formula retell controls to make sure that applied in these areas and will allow awnings in the neighboring commercial district. it would allow usages that would be allowed on the ground floor of the nc3 district and allow limited corner commercial uses in high density residential districts. finally, it would add review procedures for all billings of 50 feet or more lead therm and rc districts. you suggested over a dozen recommendations i will not go over right now, but you asked the staff work with the supervisor and his office on refining controls for snout houses, the houses where the grosz extends beyond the facade
12:49 pm
of the majority -- will garage extends beyond the facade. we have incorporated all of your recommendations and the land use committee recommends approval of this ordinance to the full board as well. at the full board, or three ordinances. the first is the final reading of the development impact sponsored by the marylandthere r you heard the ordinance on december 16th. there are changes recommended by the mayor's office of housing and the comptroller's office. among these changes were the recommendation of an unclassified section that would allow this year's adjustment of all of the fees for inflation. otherwise we would miss our first step to adjust for inflation. that would happen within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance. the board made final the ordinance by passing it on its last reading. also before the full board on
12:50 pm
tuesday was a proposed ordinance to make corrections to the plan which would amend the zoning map to reflect the actions of this commission way back when you adopted the plan in 2007. after this action by the commission, the board and land use committee made some amendments to the octavia ordinance and at some point after the transmittal of the recommendation to the board and final action by the board, some pages of the zoning map ordnance where inadvertently omitted through -- although the board voted on the zoning maps that were consistent with your action with those missing pieces out of the ordinance, we needed to follow up on that and make sure the maps mast -- map matched the blacklisting. this was heard by the board and approved on first reading this week. -- match map -- matt matched the block listing.
12:51 pm
an ordinance sponsored by supervisor farrell would remove block restaurants in the neighboring commercial district. the proposed restaurant would be allowed by conditional use of -- conditional use authorization. you recommended approval but recommended to also modified to allow the large fast-food restaurants. since your recommendations, the upvirsord ththe departments and merchants and labor groups. the supervisor amended the legislation in three ways. per your request, the ordinance includes large fast-food restaurants, second, the old legislation was amended to specify when this commission and cigarettes rents in the future in this area, the commissions should consider whether bludgeon other daytime usages to limit the businesses that have no daytime act --
12:52 pm
with these amendments, the board approved the ordinance this week and also on tuesday, there was an appeal of 795 forrester. this was a determination for these properties. the proposed project involves a subdivision of two lots into four and construction of three new single-family dwelling units on three of the new divided plots. no changes were proposed for the existing single-family on the last lot. despite arguments, the department maintained the position that follows -- number one, the presence of the project site in this seismic hazard studies done does not automatically disqualify the project, which was one of their arguments. we also maintained the permit review process complies with state law and insurers hazardous soil conditions are adequately addressed, so it is ok to rely
12:53 pm
on that. 3, the standard recommendations not mitigation measures within the context of seqa and the project description with accurate because the use the physical conditions of the project at time environmental review was done which is a requirement. the board unanimously rejected the appeal and upheld the determination. lastly, as far as new ordinances or introductions, there was a hearing request this week by supervisor: on the neighborhood plan for the executive park area -- supervised cohen. commissioner moor commissioner miguel: just a
12:54 pm
complement -- the department reviewing legislation makes commence to -- makes recommendations to this commission and on all, goes along with the because you know the code paps better than the supervisors do at time -- perhaps better than supervisors do at that time. not disparaging to the supervisors, but well over 90% of the department's recommendations, probably over 95% -- 100% in this case of the department's recommendations are actually accepted and incorpora shows we are on the same page and that is good. that is very, very good. commissioner antonini: thank you for your report, as always. on the legislation, i assume we will be seeing that sometime in the future? >> only a new hearing request.
12:55 pm
commissioner antonini: hearings, but not introductions? i had questions about the part that dealt with retail on the corner and residential areas -- >> that was part of the consistent street frontage is. we did hear that earlier. it was quite a large ordinance but is now moving through the board process. thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night. there were three items that would be of interest to the planning commission. the first is that chase bank issue. separating the issues into two -- the first is the retail use issue in the board did decide would be department with our interpretation of the code. which is not a new interpretation of the code. have applied this since 2004 when the retell controls first would into effect. the board voted to uphold the
12:56 pm
department's position. the second issue on the use the side, i spent about an hour with the appellant and we went through the plants and it is close to 4000. that's a concern for the department and we will make sure they comply with the plans which are showing use size of less than 4,000 feet. we have a disagreement with the appellants and what counts toward that use side in terms of an exterior corridor which we believe is not part of the use and the appellant argues it is. the appellant will have the ability to file a rehearing a quest on the board's appeal and there is a subsequent revision permit that addresses the walkup use. they will be revising the plans -- we had approved it without the 312 notice. it did not require a conditional use for the walked up but they will be revising the plans to make that interior so it will not be a walk up use and will
12:57 pm
not require the section 312 use. the board declared correction last night to the department that they want building department and planning department to monitor the construction and insured does comply with the use size limitation and what the plans state. two other items that would be interesting -- 281 turk which authorized the building of a pharmacy. there was a lot of neighborhood opposition to this citing the negative impact of pharmacies in the district which has picked up the name pill hill. as the board had initially denied the application when it came to the adoption of findings, the decision changed and the permit was upheld. there were hearing requests last night the will allow both parties to have counsel represent them threat a full hearing process. they will go back to hearings on that and the board will be able to have the benefit of attorneys briefing them from both sides. the last one is 731 commercial
12:58 pm
which was the appeal of a letter we had releasing suspension of the permits. we have been working diligently with the property owner and concerned neighbors to try to address issues that there may have been modifications to the building which is a potential historic resources and modifications may have been up -- may have been inappropriate. that item was continued until may to give official time to work with the neighbors. going back to chase, i appreciate the commission giving direction on how to move forward. i expressed to the appellant this is a legislative issue and i think with the benefit of having the commission's hearing, if the commission desires or board of supervisor desires, there could be a legislative fix to this issue. thank you. commissioner sugaya: what is the
12:59 pm
cross street on turk? you can get it to me afterwards. president olague: if there is nothing else, we can move forward on the calendar. item four is on previous entitlements on 524 howard st.. >> good afternoon. i'm with planning staff. this informational item 40 pertains to a previous off site location and time limits granted to an office development at 524 howard st.. the project was approved in 1989 as a 24 story building with 200,000 square feet of office space and 4,500 feet of ground floor retail space. the project sponsor did not pursue building permits that time the project received an extension on the entitlements in 1999 with a slight increase in the amount of office space. the project